Was The Early Church Closer to Protestant or Catholic? Need help?

Many Protestants I have been coming across, epecialy my old church has this continual thinking that Catholicism is a faith or Church that came around 250-400A.D. and is a coruption of the original church. They have been claiming that Protestantism fits the early church much better but can never back up what they are saying. I would quote the church fathers. Although I understand that doesn't "prove" my case but I was only trying to show that Mary as the "Mother of God" is not a 1100A.D. doctrine but was believed EARLY. Same as Holy Commuion. Although one said Augustine believed it was a symbol. I have seen where some would say this because of the quote Agustine says calling it "symbolic" but there are other quotes as well where it seems quite clear Agustine believed in the Real Presence. My priest uses the word "symbol" or "sign" but knows it's the Real Presense. It IS a sign. Just as "The SIGN of Jonah" was a REAL event or the "SIGN of the Son of man coming in the clouds" will be a REAL event.

Any comments? And does historical evidence show that (even though some writings confirm Catholicism) Protestantism was well within the early Church? Antherwords Solo Scriptua, The Rapture, 1000 year reign, prayer to the saints is idoltrous, Mary had OTHER children, Baptism only symbolic, anti-Papacy, etc? Because Iv'e heard some claim that Protestantism doesn't begin with Luther but only became greatly wordly reconized by Martin Luther and much of the early church was Protestant compared to "catholic."

P.S. Doesn't the Apostles Creed say "One Holy APOSTLIC Church?" That seems to me that the Apostles wanted ONE UNIFIED FAITH and not 30,000 Christians running around with Bibles all disagreeing and fighting. Oh how that is such a turn off to the world. Iv'e have heard Athiests say they respect the Catholic Church at least for their faithfullness and UNITY.

Answers

I've had this same discussion with my Fundamentalist friends for
over 20 years now. It never ceases to amaze me that when you get
right down to it, their one main argument is that Protestantism
never had any connection to the Catholic Church..ever.

A close friend of mine actually believes with all of his heart that
there was always a separate group of Christians in the "early
CHurch" who kept themselves "free" of Rome, and in the purity of the
gosples, never heard of again until the 16th century..to then emerge
as the Protestant Church.

All of the historical documents that the Church possesses, according
to my friend, were "falsified" IN 100 AD. When I ask him why the
CHurch would do that when they had no reason to do so in 100 AD, he
says that "satan led them".

You just cannot argue with this kind of thinking. I love my friend
dearly, yet when someone refuses to even pick up a secular history
book, written by a non-Catholic and read about the "History of world
religions" and look at PROOF of how Christianity developed, you
cannot get them to listen to anything.

I looked for a protestant "golden thread" running through Church
history, but was never able to find it! The closest thing I could
find were the Waldensians in continental Europe and Lollards in
England, but that was the High Middle Ages (13th-14th centuries),
certainly not *early* by any means.

I myself am convinced by the folowing:

1. Read the Canons of the Council of Nicea, which is available
online. Believe me, they don't sound Protestant! These martyrs
which had just come out of great persecution--many of the bishops
present had been hurt and maimed by the imperial soldiers because of
their Christian faith--are quite clearly what we would
call "Catholic" or at least "Orthodox", as far as their view of
Eucharist, the importance of the threefold offices of bishop, priest
and deacon, the importance that the dying receive holy "viaticum",
periods of Penance for serious sins, etc. None of this sounds
remotely like Pat Robinson!

2. The earliest letter from a Church "father" we have is the letter
of Clement and the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, c. 95
A.D. In it, Clement who had been ordained by Peter, mentions the
importance of obeying the bishops which had been appointed by the
apostles, talks about the bishops blamelessly "presenting the
sacrifice" (eucharist!), and says at the end of the letter that the
Church at Corinth is in grave danger if they do not listen to the
words which the Holy Spirit has spoken "by us". (Sounds like an
early pope).

3. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.), disciple of John, ordained by
Peter, calls Holy Communion "the medicine of immortality" and says
the Gnostics abstain from it because they do not believe it is "the
flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and the cup of His blood". That
doesn't sound like a Baptist! He also mentions that there is "one
altar" from which Christians eat--and an altar is a place of
*sacrifice*. Of course he regularly refers to "Christ our God".

4. Justin Martyr (died 165 A.D.) and Irenaeus of Smyrna who became
bishop of Lyons (c. 185 A.D.) speak of the Eucharist being "not
common food" but "the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus".

I could go on forever, Jason, and will give great detail if you wish.

Now granted, we do see a certain freedom in worship and use of
charismatic gifts in the New Testament that is noteworthy. The
Didache does mention "prophets" who are worthy of honor, alongside
the bishops, and that is interesting. (The Didache also says in case
of need baptism can be done not only by immersion, but also by
pouring water on the head three times "in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", so this is not a Baptist
document either!)

For me, the Catholic charismatic movement, properly administered
under the umbrella of the bishop, is a wonderful manifestation of the
early Church life: the bishop appointed by the apostles, a liturgy
(referred to by Justin and in Acts 13:1-2 "leitourgon" and 2:42 "the
prayers"), alongside the gifts of prophesy, healing, knowledge, etc.
What a wonderful blend!

The one thing I don't see much of until the fourth century is a wide
use of the intercession of saints, though it *is* found in some
inscriptions in the catachombs, and there is a third century prayer
saying "we fly to your protection, Mother of God". Normally,
ascetics such as St. Antony of the Desert, and saints like Augustine,
were content to pray directly to Father, Christ, Spirit. Augustine
does mention, however, the benefit of praying at the tombs of holy
martyrs.

In short, Jason, I am quite confident that the early Church
was "Catholic"--unless you want to become a Gnostic heretic and claim
them as your spiritual ancestors. But they died out during the
persecutions of the first three centuries; their faith was not strong
enough to survive the Roman persecutions by the emperor.

If you find any other group resembling protestants, I really want to
hear about them, because I have looked in vain for them for years.

I forgot, the only other group I could find sounding remotely
protestant or at least pentecostal, was the Montanists. Tertullian
became one eventually, which is why he is not canonized. They
believed in prophesies, etc. Their one *big* problem, in my mind, is
that they did not believe in the forgiveness of sins after Baptism!
Which is why Tertullian joined them: he was a rigorist and didn't
think Christians *could* be forgiven for adultery, idolatry or
bloodshed, etc. I think Tertullian for all his brilliance was wrong
about this; and I treasure the words of the Creeds, I believe in
the "forgiveness of sins". By the way, the Montanists died out also,
so they don't seem to be "the city set on a hill".

The question itself is meaningless, since history clearly reveals that the Catholic Church of today and the Church of the Apostles are one and the same. It's like holding a contest among contemporary artists to paint their versions of the Mona Lisa, and then asking which painting Da Vinci's "version" most resembles - itself, or one of the modern productions. It's pitiful really to see the bizarre lengths some non-Catholic Christians will go to in a desperate attempt to legitimize their existence, when such existence is plainly condemned by the words of Christ Himself. Such absurd "arguments" just illustrate the truth of the famous quote by Cardinal Newman (a convert to Catholicism) - "To know history is to cease to be Protestant". Many avoid that harsh reality by simply making sure they don't know history.

Thanks guys! And Paul M. it may have been a meaningless question but
I felt upset and a little confused and everytime I do I like to talk
about the issues with of course, my brothers and sisters, all of you:)

Hey Zarove. I have seen your arguments before on certain issues and I
know you are not Catholic but respect the faith. I myself respect
Protestants and was not attacking them but was being attacked by them
so I came seeking answers. Anyways thanks everyone.

Jason, I was only criticizing the substance of certain kinds of questions sometimes posed by attackers of the one true Church. I certainly wasn't criticizing you for inquiring about such matters. It is their questions which I find essentially meaningless, not your question about their questions.

Techniclaly speaking, Im only Protestant currently by virtueof
attenting a 4 Squate cruch. I grw up Chruch of christ, which is not
protestant, but Restoritionist. ( even though Some on this baord may
make no distunction, the course of events in the last year have
confirmed in my mind that they are seperat indeed, and the estorition
Chruches are not Protestant.)

Thus why my theology itsself is in some regards similar.I
shall start a thread about Restorition theology in the near future
shoidl time permit. However, I am often unreliable in keeping these
goals due to life cercumstances.

Although the modern use of the word "symbol" tends to mean "a
MEANINGLESS sign", the original meaning of "symbolic" as used by St
Augustine and your priest, is "expressing a truth too profound to be
able to be properly expressed in words".

Please note, in this conversation it is the Catholic community of
this board that usually attempts to diminish the meaning of the
word ‘Symbol.’ Calvin, who specifically cites Augustine, gives full
weight and power as to why the Symbol paradigm allows for the clear
description of Christ’s participation and presence in the Sacraments
without the pitfalls of Aristotle’s metaphysical/alchemy paradigm
(superstition and magic). Reformation Churches continue to use that
paradigm to explain the Sacraments.

A deed to a house is a good example of the power in a symbol. To
possess a deed is to assure ownership of a house. While the deed
(paper) is not the same as the house, it is the sign and seal that
you own the house. Even if someone else is living in the house, they
do not own it, but are simply renters.

The “Symbolus” of the Sacraments are the sign and seal of the promise
of salvation Christ made in the action of his life, sacrifice, and
resurrection to those who confess him Lord and Savior. If one is
tempted to diminish the power of that promise, we need to remember
the great assurance, “Who is in a position to condemn? Only Christ,
and Christ died for us, Christ rose for us, Christ reigns in power
for us, Christ prays for us. If a man is in Christ, he becomes a new
person altogether – the past is finished and gone, everything has
become fresh and new.”

how can this analogy be applied to the Blessed Sacrament? a brick
from said house works. but deeds prove ownership and confer the
power to sell or mortgage; what is this seal that you mention? the
brick is of the house.

as for St Augustine, St Thomas etc, that they spent ages trying to
explain the unexplainable is probably neither here or there. the
fact of the Real Presence is a fact. just as doctors having a
explanation of cancer does not chage the fact that it exists.

But, let me ask, what would you rather have, a brick from the house
or the whole house? The deed allows you to enter the house and live
in it. The brick is just a brick.

As for the “sign and seal” phrase… this uses the old imagery of a
document as being the “sign”- the details of the agreement - that
is confirmed by the ‘seal’ (the wax or ink impression on the
document) that proves it is real. The sacraments are a “sign and
seal” of the promise made by Jesus Christ regarding our salvation and
relationship with him.

Robert:The Church has taught us precisely everything the
apostles had from Jesus Christ. The seven REAL sacraments
all impart upon us profusely-- the saving grace of Our
Saviour; not merely a sign of whatever relationship you
believe in. Sanctifying grace issues forth from the
sacrifice of Calvary into every sacrament in His Holy
Church. The sacraments that give life; Baptism and the
Eucharist, infuse their recipient soul with nothing
less than a share in the life of the Triune God; life
eternal. This is the life of grace; attained in no
other way. Not as actual grace, such as prayer and
faith can obtain. Prayers and faith, however don't
approach the divine grace given our souls in
each sacrament. Each sacrament, Robert-- all SEVEN, was
instituted wholely by Jesus Christ. The Church could
never attain a single sacrament except from Him. You
and I know that all grace is His to give us.

Sin
eradicates grace, more or less according to the
severity of the offense. Mortal sin leaves the soul
damned. But through the Church and her treasury of
grace, which Jesus merited for us by His passion and
death,

Sanctifying grace is restored to
us. First for repentence, as the sanctifying grace of
absolution; in Penance or Reconciliation. Most of all
by our partaking of the Lord's body and blood in Holy
Communion. The sacraments by definition are BOTH sign
and true grace, which they signify. What
ever they may mean as the ''sign'' of Christ's
promises is altogether periferal. Grace is their
reality.

in that small tasteless wafer, you can receive [ie eat] the Body,
Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Christ.

i think that the idea that this might be so seems primitive. it
might be more modern to consider it a symbolic act. but, because it
seems "primitive", that doesn't make it wrong, though.

how many Jews that did not use bitter herbs, but used no herbs or
sweet herbs, survived the Passover? how many thought that the herb
could be symbolised [modern sense, and btw great research Steve]?
surely, none?

God said "This IS My Body", "This IS My Blood".

i suspect we'll agree to disagree, but that "seals" it if you pardon
the pun. St Justin confirms this in his historical account from the
early 2nd century.

the primitive aspects of the Faith are where so many have become
unstuck. why should i kill my son? why should i kill this animal
or that? or the daughter that happens, somewhat unluckily, to be
the first person i see.

surely, the ultimate primitivity is the Incarnation, God becoming
one if us. Yuck. how could He. we are worthless specks of
nothing. if i made a cake yesterday and it didn't taste very nice,
would i become a cake to help it taste better - or would i just
chuck it in the bin and make another?

i think we all accept the reality of the Incarnation. but even the
early Church really, really struggled with that ultimate reality.
hence all the heresies.

hope i have not wandered way off topic, and that i am not
misrepresenting yr views. and, i know, the cake analogy probably
really sucks.

We obviously disagree as to what sacraments specifically instituted -
i.e. instructed the disciples to do it (do this in remembrance of
me... go baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...).

I also take exception to the idea that sin erodes grace. This is one
of the great disagreements between Reformed and Catholic theology.
If God is the author of Grace, how can it be eroded or limited by
human behavior? To make God’s Grace susceptible to human action is
to affirm that man, and not God, is the author of salvation.

Basiclaly, if you have that "Saved" tag on, it doesnt matter what yo
do, you go to Heaven, so long as you sincerley beelived for a few
minuets yars ago...want to take drugs?Knock yourself out. Have sights
on that sexy woman? no inhibitions, have fin. shes married you say?So
what, whats marriage but a peice of paper...Adutlery is only a sin
BEFRORE your svaed, sice your saved, and grace cant be erode dby sin,
have a blast.

Grante dosme sya yo get one less jewel in or crown int h
afterlife, but at leats you had finun...

serosuly though, and realisticlaly, Logic dictates
differently.Protestants most especially stress the RELATIONSHIP
elements of God, we aenter a RELATIONSHIP with him. If I had a frend
that treated me like dirt andocnstantly ut me down, acte din self
desrictive and petty ways and alays wante dme ot bail him out so he
coidl do it again, and persisted in beign rude, degenerate, fowl
mouthed, and loathesome, I doubt my relationship woidl last very long
wiht them. Yet "reform theology" as robert holds it seems to think of
God as just this sort of doormat. He saves you, then nothign you do
can alter the fact that he now owes you heaven for a moments beleif.

And this is part of the reason why I dot undertsand reform thought
very well.

You cannot
be in sin, unrepentent; but still have grace. If sin
didn't destroy grace in the soul, then anyone
would be acceptable in heaven. But everyone is not.

It
is solely the grace of Jesus that admits us. By His
sacraments all the faithful gain, preserve in
themselves, are fortified in it, and can RECOVER
sanctifying grace. And there's no substitute for it.

The
parable of the wedding feast is indicative of this
truth. One guest is without a wedding garment; that
which we call Grace. He's cast out by command of the
king. (Matt 22, :11-14)

Mortal sin takes away that
garment. To enter heaven we must be arrayed in it; and
sin does not co-exist together with mortal sin. Grace is
lacking in a sinner unless he gains forgiveness. And
THAT is a different sacrament, Robert.

"I am relieved that the Grace revealed to me in the Gospel is
irresistible."

OK, if this is true, AND God wills **all** men to be saved - so He
must give said irresistible gift to everyone, doesn't it follow that
ALL men [+ women!] are in fact going to be saved? or is salvation
predestined? if you get the gift, you're saved no matter what. but
then, does God really want ALL men to be saved if only a few get
given this amazing gift of salvation?

You never cease to amaze me as to how you construct an argument with
yourself and then attribute it to the other person. Using your own
example – the reality is, the person who treats you like dirt never
was your friend, even if he calls you his friend. Likewise, the
person who continually lives in unrepentant sin never was saved by
grace, even if he says he is saved. While good works do not save,
the saved live by good works.

Ian;

True freedom only comes through God’s grace.

The recognition of irresistible grace is not in whom we think God
will or will not select but in the assurance we have in faith that
our salvation is not at the whim or weakness of our own human effort
but by the desire and action of God. We can never see irresistible
grace from God’s point of view. It is only a reflection of
our “pilgrim’s progress’ after we receive that grace and follow the
path of repentance, faith, justification and sanctification.
Remember, I am speaking from a Reformed point of view.

FRETZ-It never ceases ot amaze me how you need to put someone down to
make your poitns look stornger.

TheDoctorine of Irrisistable Grace and is not in the
Bible and was never taught int he hcurh till John Calvin invented it.

Why shoid I beel,ive God FORCEDS soem to beleive and nto others?
Is this no the dfinitin of "Irresistable"? If he is FORCING people to
be saved by his irresistable Grace, I guess he relaly doesnt want
everyon to be saved, unelss you interrpet the verse to mean " He
wants everyone to be saved so the people who doesnt like he lets burn
in Hell, thi ay only the saved are left."

The Idea of "Irresistable Grace" means we do NOT make a choice
in Acceptign God or rejecitn him since hes irressistable, and thus by
implecaton only svaes some oeople whom he likes better than others.

"The recognition of irresistible grace is not in whom we think God
will or will not select but in the assurance we have in faith that
our salvation is not at the whim or weakness of our own human effort
but by the desire and action of God."

to a simpleton like myself, that's pre-destination.

to simplify your statement, by taking out the negative assertions
[which only emphasis the positive, so i hope you'll agree i'm not
word-twisting]: "The recognition of irresistible grace is... in the
assurance we have in faith that our salvation is ... by the desire
and action of God."

We know where you got your views, Robert. Please note
that my initial attempt to persuade you of the
sacraments and sanctifying grace; on January 24th;
said:

''The Church has taught us precisely everything the apostles
had from Jesus Christ.'' This is the plain truth. We would
not believe EVERYTHING we believe in His Church had
not the apostles first preached it.

You have no
claim to that authority, ''speaking from a Reformed point of
view.'' Christ never founded the ''reformed church.''
Which means your view is privately attained; without
the teaching of ANY apostle. NOT ONE. Please
contemplate this in the Holy Spirit; whom
you claim you have indwelt.

Here is a scnearion Fretz. Two men. They ar ebest firneds. They woidl
gladly die for each other. The years roll on, and an acumulatin of
small thigns caus them to dift apart, toll fnally they have a faling
out. Now they are bitter and resentful on toward another.

Suppose one reconciled his feeings, and the other doesnt, andtus
still treats his former fend with contempt. dos the crrent state of
contemnt mean he lacked lov origionally for his friend inhe past? No,
he loved him deeply, and now does not.

So is the same with God and us, for thugh God never ceases his
love ofr us, we may choose to do so to God.

Unliek your scneario where the man was cruel to me aconstant
durign the course of he rslatinship, in mine, the man was niv and
orgial, and willign to lay down his life for me. But now, woudl
glaldy pull the trigger to end my life if givn the chance.

such a ang eof heart isposisble, and thus, the idea that "He
wasnt relaly saved" if he falls away is liek sayung friendhsips that
are true cannto be broken. Suhc is not the rality.

The words of Saint Paul, ''The wages of sin is death,''--
''Work out your salvation in fear and trembling,'' and --
''While we are in the body we are exiled from the Lord,''
(2Cor 5:6, and :10, ''For all of us must be made manifest
before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive
what he has won through the body, according to his
works; whether good or evil.''

He was
writing to the saints. Even so, they weren't assured
of total security. But Christ said it best: ''If thine
eye cause you to sin, pluck it out.''

Zarove: Augustine began this conversation in detail regarding
predestination. Calvin simply continued it.

Ian: "The recognition of irresistible grace is... in the assurance we
have in faith that our salvation is ... by the desire and action of
God." Nicely put. With that assurance, you are free.

Gene: Use the whole quote – 2 Corinthians 5:6-10 “So we are always
confident; even though we know that while we are at home in the body
we are away from the Lord – for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes,
we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and
be at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make
it our aim to please him. For all of us must appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what
has been done in the body, whether good or evil.

PS Zarove: Please try this to help us be clear as to what you are
thinking. 1) Write your comments on a word processing program such
as MSWord or WordPerfect. 2) Run the Spell Check and Grammar Check
for the document. Most corrections will be made automatically. 3)
Then go to “Edit,” choose “Select All, “ then “Copy.” 4) Finally,
go to the “Contribute an answer” box and “Paste.” Hope this
helps.

You learned so many errors, Robert; and keep on
thinking they're true. That is the definition
of ''fallible''.

''Infallible'' doesn't imply perfection
at all. It literally means not failing, or CORRECT.

If Christ ordained that His Church be correct forever,
that should have exempted her from your reformation.
The reformers taught you all these errors, and you
presume to reject the notion of infallibility? The most
fallible are your own ministers. They are rarely
correct, and will not accept correction. They're caught
in a wilderness of error, and one of these is ''eternal
security''.

Consider Romans 2:17-24. While St. Paul is addressing Christian
Jews, it applies to anyone or any institution that sees itself
as "correct." If the Church is an infallible "corrector of the
foolish" then its behavior of its leadership reflects the truth it
proclaims. You tell me, has the recent past been an example of the
Catholic church's "Correctness" or are we seeing verse 24 brought to
life? Perfect correctness is Christ's alone.

I am not attempting to sidestep your question, but "predestination"
has many meanings and the title often becomes the topic rather than
the meaning. I have communicated to you the meaning of what I
affirmed at my ordination.

I don't see how Augustine believed in election and not free will.
I've seem many quotes that appears he might have been teaching that,
but others that apply free will. I often speak saying "God has to
draw us to Himself before we can believe and HE has to move us toward
salvation, we cannot do that, and everything good we do (which
includes believing and following Him) is all grace from Him to begin
with." Yet we still have to COOROPERATE with Him and make the choice.
It's a mystery we cannot explain.

Robert:It's fine to be obstinate, if you're defending
the truth. But you aren't. The proof-texts you cite are
written by a Catholic saint and apostle. He must have
been one, because only the true Church had authority
during Paul's lifetime. That is our holy Church; and she
is still the infallible authority.

Not on account of
men's wisdom, or men's authority, but because of the
Holy Spirit. There is one Church to whom Christ sent the
Holy Spirit. It wasn't any ''reformed'' church, but
Paul's Church. That's the Church of the holy apostles;
not a fictitioous one depending on an imaginary
succession based on the Bible.

Does your denomination hold to the "Tulip" teaching of the Calvinist
Synod of Dort? In that case, I presume you do not believe Jesus died
for all people, but only for "the elect".

I've always had a problem with that, not only because it violates the
obvious, straightforward meaning of John 3:16, but because it clearly
contradicts 1 John 2:2, "Christ died not only for our sins, but also
for the sins of the whole world", and 1 Peter 2:1 where we see that
false prophets with destructive heresies deny "the Master who bought
them". In spite of our sad bondage and slavery, by nature, to sin
and death and the devil, the salvific will of God for all humans is
attested in Holy Scripture: He loves us: 1 Timothy 2:5-6.

By the way, Pastor Fretz, the views of Augustine were duly considered
by Augustine's own Church when, in 529 A.D. the Second Council of
Orange defined the necessity of grace for salvation, that grace is
the source of all faith and every good work--yet that council also
said Christ died for all people. Augustine as theologian would have
honored the definitive teaching of his Church on this matter.

The Reformed Church affirms that the Canons of Dort are an historic
witness to the doctrines of faith revealed by scripture. They are
part of our constitution.

The Synod of Dort would have agreed with Augustine on both claims you
identify.

TULIP is one of the English language acronyms used to describe Dort.
Perhaps a more accurate description using modern language
is “Intentional Atonement.” Dort concurred that Jesus’ sacrifice is
sufficient for the sins of all people, but it is applied only to
those whom God has adopted – John 10:14-15 “I am the good shepherd; I
know my sheep and my sheep know me… and I lay down my life for the
sheep.” That ultimate authorship of salvation is God’s alone - John
6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father draws him, and I will
raise him up on the last day.”

Jim Osterhouse, a Christian Reformed Church author wrote; “Things are
not always as they seem. Think of the gate of heaven as having a
wrought iron arch overhead. As you approach the gate you read the
words ‘Whosoever will may come,’ and you decide to walk through the
gate. Once inside you turn and read the arch from heaven’s
perspective; ‘Chosen from all eternity.’ Those who believe in Jesus
for their salvation realize that it is God who gives them faith and
God who keeps them in the faith. They can take none of the credit.
All the glory belongs to God.”

Who is saved, that is knowledge only for God. Is his grace
sufficient for our salvation? Yes, it is. Do we know who else he
has called? No, we do not – but we must assume it is the next person
we meet as we share the Gospel in our words and actions.

You haven't disposed of 2Cor 5; ''For all of us must be made
manifest before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive
what he has won through the body, according to his works; whether
good or evil.''--Robert.

But from your point of
view, your soul will have been saved no matter if
all your life you were sinful and unrepentent. (Why
Paul was unaware, I don't know.)

Your repentence itself
(if you repent) was predestined by God, who followed
after after your sins
Cleaning up the stain each time; the way we scoop
up cat litter? A truly novel idea. Not apostolic,
though.

Where exactly did I – or Calvin, or the Canons of Dort for that
matter - say that salvation is in the possession of someone with an
unrepentant soul and an intentionally sinful life?... Oh, that’s
right… I didn’t.

What has been said and written by Reformed theologians and councils
is that sanctification is the assurance of salvation obtained through
repentance and justification by faith. In other words, good works,
receiving the sacraments, worship and fellowship in the church, along
with gifts and talents of the Spirit are signs of God’s action and
assurance of His salvation.

you are a mass of contradictions. you presume your own salvation,
yet you presume election. it would be far easier to presume one's
own salvation were the trials of Salvation a challenge for the free
will [God-assisted] to over come. obviously it would.

...sorry Robert, getting the thread back on track, and irrespective
of whether you contradict yourself, the early Church was not
Calvinistic -- so your own form of protestantism is unlike the
early Church.

Where is the contradiction? If one claims to be assured by faith…
what backs up the claim better than a life in love, worship, prayer,
and good work? But, that might cause pride, until we remember it was
a gift from God.

Om telling. Augistine brought upt he discusion of election, but he
ALSO brought up the Preimenancy of the see of Peter, rome's Athority,
the Infirioty of owmen, the isnfulness of insturmental music, and
abstanng frm all forms of the world as the highest spiritual ieal,
all of hwich you reject. so regardless of augistine, whom you
misrepresent when you mention "election", as he liekwise taught frre
will in "The confessions" as well as "The city of God", you have to
wonder why you feel at liberty to reject much of Augustines austere
teahcins while graspign at the straw of his concercumstantial mention
of election?

The early Chruch beleived that we chose slavation and worked
toward ot by a moral and charitable life throughhe risen Lord and
svaiour Jesus Christ, it did NOT teahc God predestined us to slavaito
or damnation, nor did it state that there is a perserverenc eof the
saints. indeed, many, from origen to Clement to augistine, rpeidited
APOSTATES. The fact that Apostates existed in the midnset of the
ealry Chruch meant htey undertsood the cncpt of "Fa;ling away" and
held no veiw of perserverenced or preservation fo the saitns and an
absolute asurance of slavation for those who do not " Work out there
own salvation."

The faith (trust) we have is in the promise (covenant) God has made
with his people. Start with Romans 5:1-5, “Therefore, since we are
justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ...” Even after suffering in this world, our “hope is not
disappointed because God’s love has been poured into our hearts
through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.” St. Paul is
pointing out God’s promise.

If you want a start on scholarly work on the early Christian
communities, read Bart Ehrman’s “Lost Christianities” and “The
Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture.” (No, it is not a conspiracy
book against the church.)

Zarove;

Thanks for reminding me about Augustine and the others… That’s why
the Reformation Churches will reference the Church Fathers but form
doctrine from scripture alone.... (and I would even add the Greek
books of the Apocrypha… but the scriptural references for purgatory
are still as thin as the starter batch for stone soup… That’s an
aside, not intended for response to sidetrack this thread. Otherwise
we will be on Eugene’s Thread.) By the way, I have never denied
free will. I simply affirm that God’s will is greater than my own.

Robert,When the term used is ''His people'' [God] from
the Covenant POV, they are not reformed
Christians. That idea is self-serving.

Those
who rebelled against Christ's only Church-- the Catholic
Church,

--Repudiated their faith in the New Covenant.
(Romans 5:1-5, “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...”) --when seen
rightly, speaks to Catholics; loyal to the Church of the
holy apostles. But reformed Christians are no longer ''His
people,'' as you claim. The Covenant is more than just a
promise from God. It's also the peoples' covenant with
Him; to be in communion (fellowship, to protestants)
within His Holy Church; --who is in touch
with Jesus Christ TRULY, and not outside the reach of
her doctrines and authority.

There is an implied
forfeit in the act of ''reforming'' what Christ gave you
and me. One of us is true to the Covenant sealed in
Christ's blood; ME, the Catholic. The other is a lost
sheep-- outside the Church and untrue to the Covenant. YOU,
a ''reformation'' believer.

This is borne out
absolutely by the fact that you reject many
teachings of Christ. That you take liberties with His
Holy Word, and that you find men's teachings
sufficient for your salvation.

You speak as if there
were real authority behind your views; but there is
none. You depend on the word of self-ordained
ministers. They have bowdlerized the meanings of scripture
now for more than 400 years, and that's the margin of
your error.

But you came to the right place to begin
anew. Back into the Church Saint Paul spoke to in
Romans. This is a good Catholic forum where you
finally receive all the the truth about Christ and the
Holy Gospel. I'm glad you've come to us, Robert.

I suppose you have identified the core of the issue: What is it that
you seek from Christ?

I won’t say this is the case for all Catholics and I imagine it is
not the intent of the Catholic Church, but it is apparent that you
seek authority and definition (rules). Hopefully, you’ve never been
disappointed in the application of that authority within those rules
by the people you are required to trust. You seem to be empowered by
that hierarchical absolutism. If that keeps you facing toward
Christ, good for you.

Please don't change the subject to hierarchical
authority. The plain fact is, Christ has given His
Church hierarchical powers. You dislike that, fine. The
devil dislikes it even more.

Whatever keeps protestants
in ''the presence of Christ'', it isn't anything the
Catholic Church failed to teach. Your own baptism is
just part of the absolutism you decry here. It
survived the cut when your ''reformers'' were done
reforming.

We have Jesus living in our midst, Body
Blood, soul and divinity. Not from any merit we
claim for ourselves; but by way of His declared Will;
building His Church. Your ancestors, the blessed ones of
Fretz days past, all were Catholic faithful. If you
went to Europe and searched, you'd find all their
baptismal records, still available in some provincial
Catholic Church. Much like Luther's own certificate of
baptism, and those of his Catholic family. How you
can come now to disown their faith, I don't know. But
then, you may come from Jewish stock, too. At least that
would give you a plausible excuse, Robert.

The Offertory had long been a target of the enemies of Christ and
His Church, since it clearly expresses the propitiatory content of
the Sacrifice of Christ which is repeated in an unbloody manner in
the Mass. The was the subject of a stern warning by Pope Pius XII in
Mediator Dei, some of the pretended resurrection of early traditions
was patently fraudulent. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than
in the supposed revival of a "Jewish table blessing" from the days
of the first Jewish converts to Christianity as a replacement for
the Offertory. We are supposed to believe that this scrapping of the
Offertory marks a return to the type of faith and liturgy of the
earliest Church, and furthermore supposedly reminds us of our Jewish
roots. Typical modernist tactics.

Rules are not what I seek! But at times rules are called for. I for
one am willing to bend to the authority established by Christ to
Peter and the Apostles, the Keys (symbolizing prime minister's
authority, cf. Isaiah 22:22) and the authority to bind and loose.

And if that authority is sometimes misused? Admittedly that is
problematic. But the promise of Christ and the positions of
authority He has granted are not removed simply because someone
occasionally misuses them. Compare Saul, who was still the Lord's
Anointed even when he disobeyed; and the wicked sons of Eli who were
neverthless anointed priests.

But I think you would find, Grace abounds in the Catholic Church.
And by the way, I think John Calvin and Geneva could tell you a thing
or two about oppressive rules, could they not? ;-)

FRETZ-My point is this. The Binle said we must choose. If God's wil
is soveing over our own lives, then we do not choose slavation,, God
chose to save us for us, and chose to damn the others. Thats the
fatal flaw of the Counsil of Dort.

You may not realise this, but by syang our wll CANNOT resist Gods
desire to save us, then you AUTOMATICLALY say that we are pwerles ot
choose God or not, thus all the damned in Hell are te becase God
chose no to extend his irresistable grace tot hem, and all the sved
in Heaven are here because God forced them to accept him.

''Nowhere is this more
clearly evident than in the supposed revival of a "Jewish table
blessing" from the days of the first Jewish converts to Christianity
as a replacement for the Offertory.''

You're right, NO-where;
because there is no supposed anything replacing the
offertory. We offer God exactly what our mother Church
always offered. The offering of gifts at the beginning,
bread and wine, is not a ''change'' in the sacrificial
nature of the Eucharist. Go to any priest and ask him.
He'll laugh at your ''Jewish table Megillah.''.

''We are supposed to believe that this scrapping of the Offertory
marks a return to the type of faith and liturgy of the earliest
Church,'' -------Wrong. We must believe that Christ
becomes present in the moment of Consecration and Himself
makes the clean and unspotted Oblation of His body and
blood before His Almighty Father. Nothing has
been ''scrapped''-- except your credibility, Smith.

Upon further reflection, my apologies if my last post sounded snide
toward the end. It is just my frustration that, since the Catholic
Church honors the commands of Christ against divorce and remarriage,
etc., it is often accused of being legalistic. Others condemn it
because it advises against artificial contraception: my married life
agrees with this teaching wholeheartedly and finds it enriching
rather than legalistic. Again, it is condemned because it requires
celibacy of priests and bishops. Well, I would personally give more
wiggle room here, but I respect the right of the Holy Father to
accept to the presbyterate only those men who have that calling.
There are, after all, other ministries in the Church than the
ministry of the Altar. And, far from "forbidding marriage", the
Church proclaims it a holy Sacrament.

I wish the Lutherans in the ELCA knew that; instead they are in the
process of defiling holy Marriage with same-sex unions.

The Catholic Church is firm in its stand for the Truth; but I have
found it to be a wellspring of life and grace, not a cage.

If one were to believe in Christ, follow Him, love Him and
participate doing the sacraments etc. but then 4 years later begins
to slip away and eventualy doesn't believe in God any longer. Was
that person elected? No because he fell away even though he seemed as
if he could have been save and elected. He was just one of the
parables that Christ taught where some believe for a while, but the
riches, Satan, or the concerns of thisworld pull them away.

If this is the case you CAN NEVER know FOR SURE if your saved if you
believe in election/predestination until perhaps your death bed.

And again free will is a GIFT from God! Therefore we do not get any
credit because if He didn't give us free will, we wouldn't be able to
choose Him, ever! It's His gift.

What Zarove says is correct, Jason. You will lose your ever-livin'
mind if you try to figure out what each sect believes.

What Lesley said above is so similar to the experiences I have had
with my Protestant friends. When you try to show them proof of just
who and what the Catholic Church is, their eyes glaze over, their
faces contort (sometimes in a rage) and they act like you're pouring
hot oil over them. It is quite the odd thing! I believe it comes
from centuries of rebellion and deception. That spirit of rebellion
is a powerful foe.

Gail

BTW Not all are like that though. There are plenty on this forum who
are not afraid to look at the evidence. They may not know what to
make of it, but at least they have the guts to look.

Ya Zarove I know not all Protestants believe in the rapture. A good
friend of mine (who is a follower of family radio except for the
belief in leaving the church) believes when Christ returns it is
judgment day.

"A friend of mine...is studying for the Novus Ordo priesthood in a
midwestern seminary. This
week he emailed me to let me know that he made the mistake of
attending his first Tridentine Mass
last weekend. He said he loved it so much that he doesn't see how he
can ever celebrate the new
Mass. I would like to encourage everyone to attend the Tridentine
Mass just once to see what all

Someone elses post but it makes a point.
the fuss is about. The Feast of All Saints might be a good day to
drop by. I must warn you, however,
if you do attend this Mass, you may love it so much that you might
never attend the NO ever
again. Will anyone take me up on my offer

I would love to check one out sometime. The NO is the only mass I
have ever attended, but I LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT. The first mass
I attended was 3 years ago, and I thought I had died and gone to
heaven. The glorious presence of God was so sweet. Truly, having
been a Protestant all my life, I was completely FLABBERGASTED. Then
several months ago I had to attend my brothers Willow Creek-type
church. Lovely people too, nice service and all that, but I could
not wait till the next week to get back to the Holy Mass.

I think I hit a sore spot – unintentionally. I wasn’t talking about
(or attempting to insult) the structure of the Catholic Church. I
was talking about the fact that some people prefer the authority by
which a truth is taught or organized over the authoritative nature of
the truth: Example – Authority: The Bible is true because Church A
says it is true. Authoritative: The Bible is true because it is
self evident. Or - Authority: A wife is to believe her husband
loves her because he said so, and he is the head of the house.
Authoritative: A wife believes that her husband loves her because of
the way he treats her and speaks to her – it is self evident.

Is it simply one or the other? No. Does the Catholic Church
exemplify self evident fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit? Yes. Do
Protestant Churches ever use authority and rules to maintain
discipline? . But, which is dominant? It comes down to what do you
trust.

My observation is that these conversations usually end with a
Catholic using the authority of the Church as his final proof and
trump card (“Thus, saith the Church”). The Protestant will use the
self evident authoritative nature of Scripture as his final proof and
trump card. ( “Thus, saith Scripture”) When Catholics say, “We are
the authority that formed the Scripture,” Protestants say, “Because
the truth in the Scripture was self evident then, and it is self
evident now.”

Why do I lean toward the self evident and authoritative truth of
Scripture? I have been disappointed at times by Christians of all
traditions and positions of authority. Authority is only as good as
the people who use it. On the other hand, I have never been
disappointed by my continuing relationship with God through the self
evident truth revealed in the Scripture – even when it has made me
rethink (and change) traditional attitudes I was comfortable with. It
It guidels, draws, and provokes me to love God and my neighbor. It
is the nature of being Reformed and always reforming according to the
Word of God.

Jason-
“If this is the case you CAN NEVER know FOR SURE if your saved if you
believe in election/predestination until perhaps your death bed.”

That’s why it is called “Faith.” “Faith is the assurance of things
hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Heb. 11:1 (There’s
that authoritative truth of the Bible again.)

Now you come to the crunch Robert. What happens when person A truly
believes that it is “self-evident” from scripture that a certain
belief is true, and person B truly belives it is self-evident that A’s
belief is false. Persons C, D, E, F etc. have various other opinions,
all conflicting with each other, and all of which each of them
sincerely believes is self-evident from scripture. That’s when they
need an authority to decide which is true. But not just ANY authority
set up by men. They need the infallible divine authority given by
Christ to St Peter and the Apostles.

(BUT NOT
REVEALING, CONCEALING) --''that what they are
disagreeing about is a mystery,'' (God reveals something, and
you prefer a mystery?) ''--an action to be
shared in fellowship,'' (Found to be irreconciliable?)
''--but left to the knowledge of God. SO--The
truth WON'T make you free? Come on, Robert!
''Or it's irrelevant.'' What Christ gave us
in the Holy Gospel wasn't made irrelevant by a band
of ''Reformers''.

OK Robert I’ll make it concrete for you. Person A is a Catholic.
Person B is a Lutheran, C a Baptist, D a Methodist, etc., all
sincerely believing that their beliefs are the true Christian beliefs
self-evident from the Bible. Let’s call you Z. You have spent a lot of
time and energy on this site telling "A" that many of his beliefs are
wrong. Obviously you don’t think that these matters you have
vigorously disputed are “a mystery, an action to be shared in
fellowship but left to the knowledge of God… or irrelevant.”

i think your point about authority is word-play - not deliberate,
but certainly, objectively speaking, it is word-play.

here's why:

A) in the one case (Catholic), the Church is the authority;

B) in the other (your own position), the reader of the Bible is the
authority.

...and, no, the meaning of the Bible plainly isn't self-evident [its
very complicated, actually], which is why we trust the Church, and
which [practically speaking] is why there are so many different
Christian sects; and, moreover, the NT is, by its own admission and
omission, incomplete.

Yes Pastor Fretz but many Protestants believe that you can KNOW if
your saved because of having FAITH in Jesus Christ. Because of
believing in Him you CAN KNOW if your saved and when you die you'll
go to heaven. That was one of the big things and celebrations at my
former Protestant Church "The Christian Missionary Alliance Church."

I'm not saying that you believe this and you don't seem to from what
I gather from your posts. But I have friends who believe in election
and believe as well is you have an ernest ongoing desire for God
along with Faith in Christ, you can KNOW that your saved and would go
to heaven after death. Yet when you boil down to it on election, you
can never KNOW if you are saved

I think Pastor Fretz would probably answer, if you have faith in
Christ and Christian obedience, that is a sign, evidence, that you
have been elected to salvation--because God wouldn't have given you
that grace otherwise. I imagine he believes that a true Christian
cannot fall away from their faith.

I disagree with that: the examples of Demas (2 Tim. 4:10) and King
Saul come to mind, not to mention the Parable of the Sower and the
*many* warnings of Christ and of the Apostles that we must keep
faithful and persevere unto the end--why would He warn us if we
couldn't fall away?

On the other issue of "knowing" if you are saved, well, St. Thomas
Aquinas said we *could* know "with a moral certainty" from the fruits
of our life (which flow from God's gift of sanctifying Grace) that we
are saved. Compare 1 John 3:14,24 and 5:13. It is just, we cannot
*infallibly* know if we are in a state of Grace. The best prayer,
then, may be, "O God, if I am not right with You, make me so. And if
I am right with You, keep me so!"

Steve;
Perhaps you need to look more at what we agree upon. We (Catholic,
Orthodox, and Reformation Churches) are all from the Trinitarian /
Nicene proto-orthodox (B. Ehrman’s term) alliance within the various
early Church experiences. What do we agree upon?

As to your last comment, I have never told anyone they are wrong
about Catholic Doctrine (I may ask for clarification). The only time
I get involved in this board is if a comment is incorrect about a
Reformed doctrine and history or on political and social issues that
effect American society (I attempt to be specific and cite my
sources). No, Catholics should be Catholic.

Michael;
No one knows were Saul landed – that is God’s dominion. And I never
said we couldn’t slip – just that God won’t those who He has called
his own fall. I do like the prayer.

That's all very possible. Because to fall, one has to
be in unrepentent sin at the moment of death. Sice God
has sent the grace of repentence to many souls in
that hour, it can be said he loves those whom He's
called His own with infinite mercy.

Nevertheless; a
soul has free will. Repentence is our action, not
God's. He cannot repent for you. You are to choose,
when the grace has been exhausted. Your reward will come
altogether indicated by your acts of good or evil. I
ought to repeat, for the benefit of others as well as
yours:

There is an implied forfeit in the act of ''reforming''
what Christ gave you and me. One of us is true to the Covenant
sealed in Christ's blood; ME, the Catholic. The other is a lost
sheep-- outside the Church and untrue to the Covenant. YOU,
a ''reformation'' believer. --What's the
likelihood of your returning to His fold repentent, if
He sends you GRACE to see the need? He clearly DOES
give you this grace today, you're made aware here; now.

Hey eugene. I don't believe God's Graces are ever exhausted as long
as we are here on earth. I think it's safer to say that one has to
choose as His Graces are made available before time has run out on
their physical lives.

Let's quibble some other time. God grants His grace. No
one questions His willingness to keep offering more.

I
say it's exhausted at that moment we pass into the
next life. If we haven't repented, grace was of no
use. It can't be God's loss; it's the unrepentent
soul's. It wouldn't be predestined repentence in any
case, but an act of free will. God leaves it up to us.